Michael Newman, a former student at Howard University School of Law, brought suit against the University and several administrators following the loss of his academic scholarship and his eventual expulsion. Newman, a white student at a historically Black university, alleged that the School interfered with his scholarship agreement, discriminated against him on the basis of race under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and defamed him during disciplinary proceedings.
Newman enrolled in 2020 with a scholarship that would renew only if he ranked in the top 50 percent of his class after his first year. During his first semester, Newman struggled academically, missing assignments, dropping a required legal writing course, and earning low grades. At the same time, he became increasingly engaged in debates with classmates, posting political and racial commentary in group chats and on class communication platforms. Newman’s statements such as his critique of the “Black community” and later references to classmates having a “hive mind” prompted strong reactions from peers, who expressed offense and began distancing themselves from him.
Newman reported feeling ostracized and complained to faculty and administrators that he was being subjected to racial discrimination. Although he was referred to the School’s internal complaint processes, he chose not to pursue formal grievances. Instead, he continued to engage classmates through lengthy group messages and emails, including a series of letters addressing race and politics. These communications further escalated tensions, resulting in additional complaints from students and intervention by University administrators. At one point, the dean convened a town hall meeting to address the situation, during which students publicly criticized Newman’s conduct.
Despite these conflicts, Newman’s academic performance improved somewhat in the spring semester, but not enough to meet the scholarship requirement. At the end of his first year, he ranked in the bottom half of his class and lost his scholarship. Newman remained enrolled for his second year, but conflicts with the administration resurfaced. In early 2022, after a classmate’s death, Newman sent a mass email to more than 200 students linking the death to potential risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines and urging the University to delay its booster requirement. This message prompted further complaints from students, who described it as inappropriate and distressing.
The dean initiated disciplinary proceedings, charging Newman with harassment and misuse of University communication systems. Following a hearing process that included an appeal and a second hearing, a disciplinary panel found Newman responsible and recommended expulsion. The University adopted that recommendation and expelled him.
Newman’s breach of contract claims focused on the theory that the University prevented him from satisfying the scholarship’s academic requirements. The Court rejected this argument. It found that the scholarship agreement clearly required a top-half class rank, and the record showed that Newman failed to meet that requirement due to his academic performance. The Court closely examined Newman’s factual assertions, including his claim that administrators manipulated grading, allowed bias to influence peer evaluations, or otherwise interfered with his academic standing, but found no evidence supporting those allegations. Instead, the record showed missed assignments, poor grades early in the semester, and academic difficulties that independently explained his ranking.
The Court also rejected Newman’s argument that the School’s response to peer conflict and campus tension interfered with his ability to succeed academically. Although the record reflected that Newman experienced significant conflict with classmates, including criticism during the town hall and exclusion from group communications, the Court found no evidence that these events affected grading or ranking decisions. The Court emphasized that the scholarship agreement did not guarantee a particular learning environment and that the University followed its established procedures in responding to Newman’s concerns.
Newman’s § 1981 claim similarly failed because he could not show that race was a “but-for” cause of his scholarship loss. The Court noted that while some of Newman’s classmates made racially charged comments, there was no evidence that decision makers relied on race in evaluating his academic performance or scholarship eligibility. Newman also failed to identify similarly situated students of a different race who received more favorable treatment. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the same evidence that defeated his contract claims, namely, his academic record, also defeated his discrimination claim.
The Court reached a different conclusion on certain defamation claims arising from the disciplinary proceedings. It held that the dean’s statement accusing Newman of “harassment” was substantially true given the volume of student complaints about his communications. However, the Court allowed two defamation claims to proceed. First, whether the dean’s characterization of Newman’s email about a deceased classmate was “defamatory” raised factual questions, particularly given the context of a formal disciplinary proceeding. Second, the Court found a factual dispute as to whether Newman’s “hive mind” comment referred broadly to African Americans or only to a smaller group of classmates, meaning the dean’s statement could be interpreted as false.
The Court also found sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether the dean acted with malice, pointing to her prior interactions with Newman and the broader context of conflict between him and the School community. Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the University on the contract and discrimination claims and most of the defamation claims, allowing two defamation claims and a separate § 1981 claim related to Newman’s expulsion to proceed.
Newman v. Howard Univ. Sch. of Law (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2026) 2026 WL 820694.
Note: This case reflects a rise in discrimination claims brought by individuals outside historically targeted groups. Even where schools appropriately enforce academic and conduct standards, they should be mindful of how decisions are documented and communicated, particularly when sharing information about students, as these statements may create defamation or privacy concerns.